Clink MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's purpose as a feedback submission mechanism, mentions the permission requirement, and outlines the categories of feedback. However, it lacks details on rate limits, response format, or confirmation behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, important note, categories, args) and uses bullet points for readability. It is appropriately sized, though the 'Important' section could be more concise. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema, the description provides strong context on purpose, usage, and parameters. It covers authentication needs and feedback types thoroughly. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, making this nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters. It defines 'category' with four specific options and their meanings, describes 'content' with character limits and context advice, and notes 'tool' as optional for relating feedback to specific features.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('submit feedback') and resource ('to help improve Clink'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which involve project management, voting, or clink operations. It explicitly mentions reporting bugs, requesting features, or suggesting improvements, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('to report bugs, request features, or suggest improvements directly to Voxos') and includes critical prerequisites ('Requires an API key with feedback permission enabled'). It also specifies what to do if permission errors occur, offering clear alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.